"Condomism"

Over at NRO, Jennifer Roback Morse considers the "rubber ideology" embraced by those enamored with sex without consequences, attachment, or meaning:

This ["condomism"] is the belief that all problems surrounding sexual activity could be solved with enough contraception. Some adherents, such as contributors to the recent special issue of the Lancet, go even further. They believe that we could end world hunger and save the environment, if only we had enough condoms. Here are some of the tenets of condomism:

1. Every person capable of giving meaningful consent is entitled to unlimited sexual activity.

2. All negative consequences of sexual activity can be controlled through the use of contraception. Sexual Transmitted Diseases can be controlled through the use of condoms. The probability of pregnancy can be eliminated through contraception, properly used.

3. No one is required to give birth to a baby, in the event of pregnancy. Abortion, for any reason or no reason, at any time during pregnancy, is an absolute entitlement.

4. Any negative consequences of sexual activity that can not be handled by contraception or abortion are not worth talking about.

Sounds about right. Advocates of such stupidity will gush about how wonderful, liberating, and fulfilling is sex without commitment or moral strictures (#1), but cannot conceive (pun intended) that there could actually be a dark side to this amoral/immoral approach to such intimate and powerful actions (#2). But isn't it a basic fact of moral reality that the greater the good, the more devastating are the consequences of misusing and abusing that good? Yet, somehow, through the alchemy of psycho-babble and liberated lifestyles, sex only has meaning if you want it to have meaning.  Just like a fetus is a baby only if you want it to be (#3, #4). As has been said numerous times in different ways, there are simply to approaches to life: you can conform yourself to reality and truth, or you can attempt to conform reality and truth to yourself.

Comments

[Deacon John M. Bresnahan]

Of course , some people ignore the fact that Europe is condomizing and aborting itself into oblivion--leaving the continent to those who want no part of the West's Culture of Sterility---Moslems.

[Billy Billingsley]

Just throw condoms at the problem. That'll solve everything.

[Boinkie]

Yup. and when I went to Medical school in the 1960's, our psychiatric teachers said all mental illness was due to sexual frustration and that sexual liberation was the cure...didn't work very well, did it?

[Brian John Schuettler]

This ["condomism"] is the belief that all problems surrounding sexual activity could be solved with enough contraception...
The dogma of Condomism is a conundrum in that sexual activity, if left to itself, tends toward reproduction which, in turn, guarantees survival of the species. Condomism is therefore an inherent rejection of Darwinian theory in that survival, being dependent upon reproduction, is thwarted.
Question: Can a believing, dogmatic Darwinist endorse contraception and abortion?
If he does then is it fair to say that he has abandoned the first principle of his Belief System of Darwinism?
If he does not then shouldn't all dogmatic Darwinists support a pro-life position in the culture wars?

[MenTaLguY]

Brian, I'm not sure that follows.

Evolution generally refers to the notion that, given reproduction, random variations accumulate and are winnowed by environmental factors to arrive at forms which are maximally effective at reproduction (survival being important only to the extent that it contributes to reproduction).

Doctrinaire evolutionism's core principle is simply that that such processes (whether we're speaking of genes, "memes", or budding universes) are the immediate and only cause of everything in the cosmos. Given such a worldview, whether life, survival, or reproduction are actually desirable must be assessed using a separate metric.

Usually that metric ends up being personal convenience. If it turns out that the only "evolutionarily viable" strategies are personally inconvenient, oh well. Don't feel like caring for children? Contraception. Don't feel like taking care of Baby-who-was-conceived-anyway? Abortion. Don't feel like taking care of Grampa? Euthanasia. Extinction of the human race? Eh. Why not?

From there it's not too difficult for a slide from selfishness into self-righteousness like that which marks the voluntary human extinction movement [warning: site makes me physically sick].

Yes, it's stupid, evil, and Satanic, but there you go.

[MenTaLguY]

On a different note, re: Boinkie's post, I wonder how many people today toe the "liberation" line, but fail to realize that contraceptives are -- by definition -- agents of sexual frustration.

[Brian John Schuettler]

"Doctrinaire evolutionism's core principle is simply that that such processes (whether we're speaking of genes, "memes", or budding universes) are the immediate and only cause of everything in the cosmos. Given such a worldview, whether life, survival, or reproduction are actually desirable must be assessed using a separate metric."

Yes,MenTaLguY, I follow. If only my exercise were indeed as simple as I made it to sound! What I was attempting to do was to satirize the increasingly occurring "religious" tone of the dogmatic atheists who are currently led by Richard Dawkins (Mr. Meme himself). Just look, as you stated, at their attempt to assign "cause" without accepting a metaphysical reality of meaning. It's ludicrous! Their religion does not have a framework or "intellectual justification", if you will. It amused me to think that perhaps the neo-darwinian materialists should adopt a central core of doctrine beginning with commitment to survival. Anyway,the whole comment was really done "tongue in cheek". Thanks for your astute input.

[Fr. Stephanos, O.S.B.]

The Church doesn't expect condom-users to sell catechisms.

Condom-users should not expect the Church to sell condoms.

[gotprayer]

Condomism that a good one like everything under issue today it always black or white with either side. I just once wish you, as well your foes would look at the spectra physical or to say it another way, in the same text, would look at the whole tree and not just a live branch and a dead one. Or prehaps your whole point is to get me to wish I was never given my exsitence after all I did not ask for my existence at least to my knowledge. If this was your objective... well done! For 4 years I have gone with out a spouse. Trying to grasp Christ Jesus and now understanding what I have come to see as the false and empty promises of the self proclaimed moral elitist. Last week I purchase condoms under considerable guilt. For two reasons (1) I am not under oath or orders, holy or other wise. and (2) if I get lucky enough to be held, caressed and warmed even if the happy ever after, is not so ever after. I say to your emptiness whooee (meaning poop) Love is better than your so call Morality. Time is fleeting better to love if even finite, as it where and lacking then to neither be loved or to love. Your morality molding is fine for juveniles and young adults and the married but it has no place for men in mid life crisis in fact it show little compassion to say the least. And just to keep it spectra physical and keep our foes at bay. I do not think this ever so missed act should be multi-plistic either "there can be only one".
A couple nights ago I kiss a women long and gentle the longivity of our relationship ended within those moments. However dispite your view that moment is mine it is not ugly nor is it or was it a hellaious sin nor a forever after, loss. I wish it had gone to sex. (what ever the hell that is) That kiss was very cool. It was centristic like my Catholic faith. Maybe not yours but yes mine. Again if my whole demeanor is wrong and I am will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven I wish I was never given existence. What hope is there if the Lord enters into Judgement with his servant.

[David]

Never give up hope! The Lord's mercy, like His Love is infinite. Full well does He understand our weaknesses and passions. His forgiveness is ever ready so long as we are willing to repent and attempt to obey His law.

A fundamental aspect, I think, of Christian service is to attempt to discern God's will and live by it. This means that if He, through His Church, says that something is wrong, like contracepting, then such an act must be wrong. Obedience to God's law demands that we conform our behaviour to this. But this shouldn't be seen as mere moralism. Rather, it is the foundation for what we are called to do: that is, to love.

[Philip]

I think the four points should be seen more as the bill of goods, or snake oil, being sold by to the public by utterly degenerate criminals. This fits with Kerouac's theory, as Morse brings up at NRO, that promiscuity reduces the ability of people to form emotional bonds, and it also fits with the rampant promiscuity of rampantly violent cultures and people. It also fits with what we know about the denials that contraception would lead to abortion and family breakdown (that being the purpose), and the lies we know were told by NARAL from its beginning and admitted by Bernard Nathanson.

The free sex lobby does not have a sexual ideology, but a series of evolving rationalizations. It is not about sex, but the complete liberation from all moral strictures (as gotprayer points out), the surrender to any and every temptation. It's like a training. As far as I can tell, Catholics and relativists are in increasing agreement, but on different sides, or you might call it the same side of a different coin.

[Philip]

That's Keroac.

[Brian John Schuettler]

Pretty safe bet it wasn't Jack Kerouac...:)